by Ibon » Sun 03 Nov 2013, 00:40:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rollin', 'A')mericandream has a valid point. Large forces are at work that stymie most efforts to positive change. The only problem with this locked up situation is that geophysical and natural forces will be the ones to sort things us, we will lose any semblance of control. Maybe we never had any real control to begin with.
Lately I have been looking back at the 40 years since the 70's when I first started down the path of environmental activism and from when I was a student in environmental science. In the beginning the message was really all about doing something before it is too late and that was an accurate assessment because there truly was a choice and crossroads of sorts. My particular focus was and always has been biodiversity preservation and I was motivated by not wanting to see species perish.
The dominant economic model of both consumption and capitalism won what was back then an ideological struggle.
It was with the peak oil movement and to a degree the climate change movement that in the early years of the 21st century you can see a far more sober assessment among all fields of environmental science and biology that has slowly understood that the ideological struggle is not one we can win and in fact we have committed ourselves to a path of surrendering to default to external events. The old school research ecologists who visit us at Mount Totumas who have intimately been studying their frogs or beetles or moths for up to 5 decades all pretty much confirm this same sentiment. This assessment has been perhaps the strongest amongst ecologist studying biodiversity, it has been an odd truth that loss of biodiversity has not generated the same buzz as climate change and peak oil. There are reasons for that I will not elaborate in this post.
I was just thinking of a shift that has taken place even in the past 8 years or so when, in the first years of the 21st century, here on this very website, posters like Montequest would advocate draconian population control measures and make the bold statement that we either have change by design or by default. If we cant make the tough decisions by design than nature will solve the problem by default and when the change comes from nature, who knows no morals or ethics, it will be far more brutal than whatever required limits we would have imposed by design. An example, think of a parasitic wasp that lays its eggs on the back of a caterpillar and the hatching wasp larvae then eat the caterpillar from within while it continues to live for a couple of weeks until it is eaten alive. If nature did not have these draconian controls in ecosystems we would have caterpillars denuding our forests.
Kudzu Apes are currently a huge crop of nutrient rich caterpillars on the planet and the analogous parasitic wasp yet to be reveled is hidden in the arsenal of the Overshoot Predator.
So Montequest 8 years back was suggesting we need to apply these limits to insure that the death-rate equalled the birthrate and in fact through the following decades exceed it in order to return to carrying capacity. The outcry of his message 8 years ago was virulent and the moral outrage palpable as some of you may remember.
I find it interesting that today, 8 years later, this sentiment is not quite the same. There seems to be a lot more folks that understand that we are now deep in the territory where we have surrendered to change by default, to be lead by external events, since we have failed to do this by design.
You can actually perceive a shifting consensus when you look back through the decades of these debates.
And a very strong growing consensus that the inertia of business as usual and the conformity that AmericanDream refers to is indeed non negotiable from any internal reforms having expanded globally.
It is all about the external events now..............
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com